Home > APPROVAL
Mediated Pedagogical design:
the cycles of iteration interface
by
David Cotter Murphy
BFA, Simon Fraser University,
1992
Project submitted in partial
fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
In the School
of
Communication
© David Cotter Murphy 2003
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
July, 2003
All rights reserved.
This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
|
This document is the written component of a mediated pedagogical design project that produced the Cycles of Iteration interface (see attached CD-ROM). This interface was designed to assist the process of teaching video production to novice users. The Cycles of Iteration interface represents an attempt to synthesize concepts of Media Literacy, Critical Pedagogy, and Design Theory into an interactive system of instruction. The design integrates presentation materials with review and reference information.
The design process for the Cycles of Iteration interface included scenario building and structural model development. Once a prototype of the interface was created it was tested using a pilot study of undergraduate students who informed further iterations of the design. An expert panel of professional video production instructors were also asked to comment on the interface.
The Cycles of Iteration interface was designed to assist the instructor lead process of video production. It was designed with aspirations of bridging a divide between practical production skills and critical media analysis by its incorporation into existing curricula.
For my mother, Joyce Murphy.
I
would like to thank my advisers, Dr. Brian Lewis and Dr. Richard Smith,
for allowing me the freedom to realize this project and for their continued
support and advice throughout this process. Thank you to Mr. Jim Bizzocchi
who provided insights and suggestions that helped enormously in bringing
together the final document. My philosophy on teaching and media analysis
has been profoundly shaped by the mentorship and friendship given to
me from Dr. Stephen Kline. My gratitude goes out to the staff in the
School of Communication, Neena Shahani, Evelyn Hassen, Denyse Zenner,
and Chris Jeschelnik, all of who are responsible for making our department
a great place to work. This project would not have been possible with
out the inspiration and devotion of my dearest true love, Anne-Marie
Nicol.
HCI Human Computer Interaction
URL Universal Resource Locater (web site address)
DV Digital Video (video format)
The motivation behind creating a mediated pedagogical design for instructing video production comes from my experience as a media production teacher. I have taught novice videographers1 who aspire to produce a great range of video productions, from better home movies, to politically active segments, to feature length documentaries. This range of aspirations creates difficulties for a pedagogical design including how an instructional system can be relevant to individuals with diverse learning requirements. I also see a need for a system of instruction in video production that can be used in various independent production environments, such as non-profit communities, Independent Media Centres, public schools, community based programs, and other groups who’s access to resources are limited by social, economic, or geographic barriers. My intention for this mediated pedagogical design is that it can be a system that can provide an alternative to strictly preparing learners to work in the “winner-take-all” environment (Geuens, 2000) of the contemporary culture industry.
The problem then is to design a system of instructional resources for video production that can be useful across a range of user levels as well as being affordable and accessible to independent videographers. In an attempt to address this problem I am suggesting a mediated pedagogical design for video production that is based on cycles of iterations and delivered via the common media presentation environment of a web browser. This mediated pedagogical design is intended to be a resource for teaching video production on as general a level as possible (i.e. not genre based, not specific to a particular video product) and to be used across a range of educational and independent production environments.
The outcome of my attempts to create a mediated pedagogical design to teach video production is the Cycles of Iteration web site (www.sfu.ca/media-lab/cycle or see accompanying CD-ROM). This site includes three iterations of the production process which are each divided into four quadrants namely: Pre-production, Production, Post-Production and Review. The three cycles of iteration are designed to take a novice videographer from a level of virtually no production knowledge to the point of producing a short, self-contained, and presentable video production. Although there is a desire to have a totally autonomous, self-directed pedagogical system, the complexities and subtleties of video production have resulted in this design being a hybrid that combines synchronous presentation materials with asynchronous review and reference information. As a result the Cycles of Iteration interface is has dual functions: As an instructor or facilitator lead teaching resource, and as a reference site for learners.
The problem that I have tried to address in the design of the Cycles of Iteration interface is how to consolidate and organize the large volume of knowledge that is needed in order to take a novice videographer to the point of producing a finished video product.
The Cycles of Iteration interface was designed to accommodate novice videographers and take them from never touching a video camera to the production of a short video. There is no specific age group for the user profile, but the need or desire to communicate through the production of video is assumed (See the scenario building section for examples of users).
The design of the Cycles of Iteration interface was created with an intention to apply theories of critical pedagogy that investigate the relationship between experience, action, and knowledge within a practical design context. The pedagogical theories formed a foundation that drew attention to the process through which knowledge can be created (Lusted, 1986). The process of knowledge creation became important to the design method because it formed the observable (pilot study) and imaginable (scenario building) data.
Developing the Cycles of Iteration interface was also an examination of the way technology mediates our methods of knowledge transfer in contemporary learning environments. The browser-based interface represents a form of informational mediation that is very much part of present-day education culture.
The term mediated pedagogical design represents the three theoretical traditions that were drawn upon during the creation of the Cycles of Iteration interface.
Media Literacy is a term with many definitions. In the most general sense it refers to the development of knowledge of or training in the field of mass media (Television, print, video, Internet, new-media, etc.). A more expanded definition that raises issues of social responsibility is given by the Center for Media Literacy:
“Media Literacy is a 21st century
approach to education. It provides a framework to access, analyze, evaluate
and create messages in a variety of forms — from print to video to
the Internet. Media literacy builds an understanding of the role of
media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-expression
necessary for citizens of a democracy.” (CML, 2003)
Within this definition is only a brief nod towards the idea of the creation of media as a component of media literacy which is an indication of what I see as a under developed aspect of the field. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “literacy” as: “The quality or state of being literate; especially the ability to read and write.” It is my opinion that Media Literacy as a field of study concentrates mainly on the critical analysis and evaluation of existing media, or in other words, the reading of media. The creation or writing of media exists predominantly within a production model and not as a way of critically understanding a language of media. The development of the Cycles of Iteration interface was inspired by a perceived need to develop the writing aspect of media literacy.
Advancing media literacy is one of my goals as a teacher of media production. I believe that an understanding of media production provides individuals with a greater ability to make conscientious decisions in our increasingly mediated society. Raymond Williams refers to choices that we as a society have concerning developments in communication technology that can be a part of social development, social growth, and social struggle (1974, p136). These choices are better made through the demystification of media production that can lead to a greater understanding of how public opinion is formed.
The formation of personal and social identity is strongly influenced by the consumption of cultural production such as film, television, Internet, and other media. Marshall McLuhan theorizes that the dominant media of communication historically shapes the progression of society and culture (1962, 1964). We create boundaries that mystify or fetishize the production of mass media giving its message a heightened value and as a result its impact on our identity as citizens is increased. In order to begin to break down these boundaries we must develop a form of literacy that allows an understanding of cultural production. My experience as an instructor has taught me that learning the process of media production is a significant foundation to the advancement of Media Literacy.
Teaching
media production necessarily requires the instruction of a set of skills
and practices that often results in it being termed “vocational training”
or “skilling.” At the base of my efforts to create resources for
teaching video production is a desire to educate students not only in
practical skills but also in critical understanding of the role media
plays in society. In this regard I agree with Stan Denski (1991)
that an emphasis must be placed on the ethical and moral dimensions
involved in the structures and processes of media production as a practice
(dimensions that are largely ignored by traditional methods of media
vocation or “Industry” training).
Ethical and moral issues are not overtly addressed in the content of the Cycles of Iteration interface, however its design provides access to media production with as little beholding to industrial constraints as possible. The Cycles of Iteration interface was designed to maximize individual creativity and minimize equipment and resource constraints. There is as well a tacit understanding that the interface provides the skills training that frees up class time to critically discuss and analyze how the media production industry maintains and re-produces dominant cultural values. Allowing the possibility of creating alterative media productions.
A
critical pedagogy of media production is, in practice, a new concept.
The bridging of media literacy with critical pedagogy provides enormous
potential for learning about how and why media has such an impact on
society. One of the challenges of this bridging is the breadth
of skills required to learn media production can obfuscate less tangible
inquiries of a moral or ethical nature. This is a challenge of
practice that I have tried to address with the Cycles of Iteration interface
by allowing it to present and review the more objective and practical
aspects of production, something that a mediated interface is particularly
good at doing. Where as critical understanding of the roll of media
production in the construction of contemporary culture is a topic best
taught in a non-mediated dialogue.
Two specific pedagogical theories were involved in the design of the Cycles of Iteration interface that relate to video production as a social practice. Video production is inherently social because its communicational properties require an audience; furthermore the production of video often requires social interaction with co-producers (crew, talent, etc.). The skills and procedures required to produce video make it an experienced practice. These two aspects, social interaction and experiential practice, are addressed in the pedagogical theories of communities of practice by Etienne Wenger and the roll of experience in education by John Dewey respectively.
Etienne Wenger proposes a social theory of learning that is based on participation within a community of practice. I have observed as a media production instructor that one of the great motivators production students have is the desire to be associated as part of the production industry community. Even as critical knowledge of the production industry is developed the desire to be accepted and rewarded by the community of professional production is undeniable. This motivation can be viewed as a challenge for media literacy and critical analysis but it can also serve as the inspiration that facilitates learning and the construction of meaning. The resulting situation is somewhat of a double-edged sword for a critical pedagogy of media production requiring a balance between the motivational desires of aspiring videographers and the development of critically conscientious media producers and consumers.
The inter-subjective nature of video production exists on a number of levels. One of the most noticeable levels is the public presentation of finished works, or screenings. Public screenings of student-produced videos are an accepted and important part of learning the production process (see the Review sections in the Cycles of Iteration interface). However, few other endeavours in most students’ experience require the same level of public exposure, scrutiny, and critique. The fear of public review can be a powerful motivator for any producer.
Another level of inter-subjectivity in video production is related to its collaborative nature. Although it is possible to produce video as an individual, a majority of production requires some form of social interaction, such as instructing crewmembers, directing talent, or securing permission to shoot a location. All such social interactions become part of a community of practice that leads to the creation of knowledge.
As presented in the book “Communities of Practice” (Wenger, 1998) learning is a result of social participation comprised of these components:
These
components exist in the community of practice that is formed by a group
of video production students and should be considered during the implementation
of a media production instructional environment.
Although John Dewey (1859 - 1952) wrote in an era with less emphasis on the concerns we have today about incorporating technology and media into learning environments, his comments on “traditional” and “progressive” education are still valid. Traditional education relies on institutionalized, historically defined subjects and methods, where as progressive education requires a dynamic adaptation to a changing society. Dewey presents an argument that requires education to be progressive (while not completely dismantling traditional practices) not just because it improves the educational system but because education in itself is a method of study by which we cumulatively examine knowledge, meaning, and values of the world.
Michael Eldridge (1998) describes the central aspect of Dewey's philosophy as "cultural instrumentalism," a positioning that understands thinking to be a tool for dealing with problems in the world. Dewey believed that the primary role of his work was to develop this tool (thinking) to better society and its members, and the key to doing this was through education. Education based on the “philosophy of the social factors that operate in the constitution of the individual experience” (Dewey, 1938). The factors, which he refers to as permanent frames of reference, are the organic connection between education and personal experience.
Dewey acknowledges that experience is present in a learning environment regardless of design so what really matters is the quality of experience. Two aspects of the quality of experience should be considered. First the immediate aspect of agreeable versus disagreeable experience, and secondly the influence an experience has on subsequent experiences. An ideal learning experience is immediately enjoyable and promotes having desirable future experiences. Therefore education is a development within by and for experience. There is a continuity or a “experiential continuum” in that every experience both takes up something from those that have gone before and contributes to the quality of those to come (Dewey, 1938).
Experience is essential to learning the process of video production. The concept of “learning by doing” is at the foundation of this entire mediated pedagogical design. Each cycle of iteration is coupled with a practical module that is produced and reflected upon (see the scenario building section for examples of practical modules). The experience and self-reflection that is gained from each iteration not only give practice to concepts presented but also challenges areas of conceptual uncertainty by forcing a concrete outcome (the finished production).
The term “Design” is used in many different fields of study. Architects, graphic artists, landscapers, fashion creators, system scientists, mathematicians, pedagogues, all claim to be designers and to have a theory of design specific to their field. However, the common idea that all theories of design address is the improvement of future outcomes. To this end there is an emerging field of pure design studies which attempts to integrate disciplines of understanding, communication, and action with the intention of improving society’s development by the humanization of technological progress (Buchanan, 1996).
Design studies have been emerging as form of integrating knowledge that combines theory and practice to help negotiate the complexities of our current technological culture for the better part of the 20th century. Walter Gropius inaugurated the Bauhaus school for realizing a modern “architectonic” art in 1919, with the guiding principal that design was “an integral part of the stuff of life, necessary for everyone in a civilized society” and that it would avert society’s “enslavement by the machine” (Gropius, 1943). Design still eludes a specific definition or even a set of accepted practices and continues to grow in scope to what is now recognized as a “new liberal art of technological culture.” (Buchanan, 1996)
Attempts to systematize a science of design have been made, such as Herbert A. Simon’s book “The Science of the Artificial” (1996). Simon presents methods and procedures based on logic and analysis to suggest a system by which design problems can be evaluated and ultimately solved. This approach, however, turns out to be less effective in practice because of the multitude of indeterminable factors that arise during the design process. A science of the artificial assumes an almost perfect condition of human intentionality, a condition that as of yet does not exist. As a result design remains an idiosyncratic domain that lends itself to iterative structures, intuition, improvisation, and creativity more so then to the scientific method.
An area of design theory that was called upon during the development of the Cycles of Iteration interface comes out of the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Recent trends in interactive systems research have indicated foundations for a new design and analysis approach that draw upon developments, throughout the twentieth century, in phenomenology and ethnomethodology. This foundational framework is encapsulated in the concept of embodied interaction, developed in particular by Paul Dourish (2001).
Embodied interaction is a perspective that includes aspects of tangible and social computing by accepting the act of interacting with technology as a part of a broader system of meaning that is constructed from the specific settings (physical, social, organizational, cultural, etc.) in which the action takes place. Embodied interaction is concerned with how meaning is created, established and communicated through the incorporation of technologies into practice. It exists as an organizing principal that has been developed to inform the design and analysis of the interaction between individuals and technology within a social context.
Using an embodied perspective to view the pedagogical ideas of communities of practice and experience allows the bringing together of two domains of knowledge and practice, namely embodied interaction and critical pedagogy. The result is a movement towards a theory that can inform the design of interactive pedagogical media.
Design studies have produced a number of methods and procedures that can improve future outcomes. The two specific methods used in the development of the Cycles of Iteration interface were Scenario Building and Modelling.
The first design decision, after a problem statement and user profile had been decided, was the medium for the interface. Initially the idea was to create an interactive DVD that was menu driven and contained video and audio examples of concepts. The reason for not perusing the DVD option was because the production requirements were not justified for the level of instruction needed. The Cycles of Iteration interface is designed for the novice student and most of the examples were as effective as stills and text as they were with full resolution video and audio. However, there are elements that could have benefited from video examples (i.e. transitions in section 3c), therefore, the interactive DVD is still being considered for future developments in pedagogical design. A “browser” based or HTML based interface was decided on because of its ubiquitous nature and the ease of development.
Initial design prototypes included some larger video, image, and audio files with the intention of the interface being served on local computers or from CD-ROM. The added pedagogical value of the larger files was not significant enough to out weigh the advantage of creating a centrally served web-based interface. The problem with the larger file on the locally server version was that any updates would require re-loading the interface on multiple computers. A centrally served web-based interface can be updated from a single point and accessed from a web browser on any computer with an Internet connection. Whereas with a locally served interface the number of access points for students is dramatically reduced.
Once the decision to create a centrally served web-based interface was made the problem arose of reducing file sizes so that access from slower network connections would still be effective. A balance between effective communication and image compression quality or image size was determined based on numerous test sites that were examined using various network connections. The interface did not seem to be effective unless there was almost instantaneous response to user interaction. For a perceptibly instantaneous response the interface files had to be as small as possible. This was achieved by maximizing image compression and the extensive use of white space (which is more easily compressed) throughout the site. The initial web-based interface that was used in the pilot study consisted of approximately 450 files and is a total of 3.9 Megabytes.
Jakob
Nielsen suggests that size limits for web pages, in order to achieve
a desired response time, is less than 8k (based on average ADSL home
internet connection bandwidth). This limit provides the user a
sense that they are moving through an “information space” freely
(Nielsen, 1997). Nielsen states in his writings about usability engineering
that the basic advice regarding response times has been about the same
for almost thirty years (Nielsen, 1994). A brief summary of how latency
times affect the usability of a web site are given here:
* 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.
* 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.
Donald A. Norman writes extensively on the humanization of technology and design (see jnd.org). He advises, in concurrence with Jakob Nielsen, that content and the speed with which it arrives are the most important properties of a website. To this end careful consideration should be given to graphics in that they should never be gratuitous or in any way unrelated to the content of the website. Norman recommends that a website design should use HTML code that is as possible and to eliminate any graphical elements that do not directly at to the informational content of the website (Norman, 2002).
The structural model for the Cycles of Iteration interface is the foundation that the entire design is built on. The model is an expanding spiral that starts in the centre and continues clockwise, expanding to a new level after each cycle. The concept behind the spiral structure is to re-enforce the iterative nature of video production, and to represent the idea that knowledge and skills are built upon knowledge and skills developed in previous cycles.
To define what content should be included in each cycle and in what order the information should be presented, the method of scenario building was employed. Three scenarios were developed that included a brief characterization of a potential user as well as the context in which the interface might be used. In addition, three practical modules were developed for each scenario that correspond to each of the three cycles in the interface.
The development and implementation of user scenarios was crucial to the interface design. The scenarios, especially the practical modules, informed the content of the design by providing sequential requirements of knowledge that would be needed to complete each goal. The definition of the user modules was therefore the most important component of the scenario building exercise.
File structure was an important consideration in the design process from the onset. Ramifications of organizational decisions concerning file structure that were made at the beginning of the process would magnify as the number of files were added to the design. The file structure had to be able to maintain the organization of an unknown number of image and text files, as a result the design of the first iteration had a couple of false starts due to unwieldy file management. The number of files could be expected to increase with consecutive iterations (due to an increase in complexity of content with higher level iterations) so if the file management system was hard to control in the first iteration it was better to redesign the system before continuing. The resulting file system combines a hierarchic structure and a nomenclature system that reflects the overall structural design of the interface. Each iteration (1,2,3) is divided into four quadrants (a,b,c,d) each of which have two sections (concepts and slide show).
The
hermeneutic circle refers to the circle of interpretation that is involved
in the understanding of knowledge. The concept is a way of stating
that understanding and knowledge is a cycle of exposure to information
(texts), interpretation, then re-exposure to texts. Subsequent
exposure to a text is influenced by the interpretation of the previous
text. This concept forms the foundation for the structural model in
the Cycles of Iteration design.
Figure
1 Hermeneutic Cycle
Hans-Georg Gadamer refers to a circular process of hermeneutic interpretation where meaning is always negotiated between one's own preconceptions and those within the horizon of the other (Gadamer, 1979). The cycle exists between subjective knowledge and objective experience of a text.
Kitaro Nishida uses a concept of “basho” to represent a place between subjective and objective experiences. Knowledge is created in the space where subject and object unite (Nishita, 1990). The union of the subject and the object occur when a concept is internalized to the point of realization or practice. It is the balance between explicit and tacit knowledge.
The structural model for the Cycles of Iteration is an expanding spiral. Each iteration builds on knowledge from the previous cycle.
Figure
2 Cycles of Iteration Structural Model
The design is intended to imply expanding cycles that increase in complexity and are built upon knowledge created in previous cycles. Each iteration is coupled with practical modules (see the scenario building section) that allow the user to realize concepts. The combinations of presentation, review, and practice are inherent to the design as a method of knowledge creation.
The cyclic form of the structural design is divided into four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a stage in the production process. Most established textbooks state the first three stages in the production process, namely Pre-Production, Production, and Post-Production (for example: Anderson, 1999; Barbash, 1997; Hempe, 1997; Long, 2000; Rabiger, 1998; Zettl, 1995). However the fourth stage, Review, is usually regarded as outside of the production process. The reason I have included a Review section as one of four elements in the production process is because it serves a critical pedagogical purpose.
The Cycles of Iteration structural design implies the continuation from ending one iteration to the beginning of the next. The Review section allows a moment of reflection before beginning the process again. This reflection has the potential of teaching the producer about strengths and weaknesses in their endeavours, ideas that seemed understood might not have been communicated or intuitive actions during production may be explicitly recognized. It has been my experience that public critique and evaluation sessions of student productions have consistently been identified as one of the most significant learning moments (and sometimes the most difficult) in the production process.
The immediate experience that affects the design of the interface includes aspects such as speed of access, aesthetics (uniform, achromatic), ease of use, conceptual and navigational layout, etc. The allegorical nature of the structural design is meant to remind or make reference to previous experiences of the user. For example when a user is about to start the third iteration all four sections of the first two iterations are visible as reminders of lessons and practical skills that were learnt in past experiences. The intention is that these experiences will inform and inspire the participation in current and future experiences as they are presented in the model
Scenario building is a method of developing usability requirements or goals for a particular design. Scenarios can be used to identify and address implications of design options and interface issues that arise during the initial design process (Carrol, 1995). Scenario building can help to inform the design process about the way people may react to a design within a specific situation.
During the initial design process scenarios can provide a rich source of ideas by allowing usability requirements and targets to be generated through the identification of user characterizations. Scenarios offer concrete representations of design requirements by defining intended end users’ identities, goals, tasks, and their general working context (Clark, 1991).
The process of creating design requirements using scenarios requires functionally deconstructing user goals into the operations needed to achieve them. This is done by the creation of “mental maps” that allow an insight into uncertainty by the development of characters and stories (Schwartz, 1991).
The following are scenarios were developed with the intention of providing a user insight into the design of the pedagogical model. The scenarios are used to envision the completion of three example modules that correspond to the cycle iteration in the model.
Ted, 23, third year Anthropology major at university. Moved to Vancouver four years ago from Singapore. He is interested in learning video production to document an archaeological dig he will be attending in Singapore next year. Ted has no previous video production experience but is interested in computers and digital photography. This scenario is based on conversations with undergraduate students at Simon Fraser University.
Cycle 1: Scavenger Hunt
A list of single shot descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of someone reading, MS of a financial transaction, WS of people waiting in a queue, PAN across a crowd, etc.)
Cycle 2: Road Trip
A sequence of scenes depicting the journey from home to school are planned out in pre-production and shot continuously and in sequence during production.
Cycle 3: Profile
Video portrait of someone (class mate, relative, friend). Portrait can include interviews, visual evidence and contextualization, audio layers such as music and narration.
Helen, 45, is an assistant head day nurse at local general hospital. She has been a nurse at the same hospital for 15 years. She wants to learn some video production skills to be able to participate in a new program that is archiving procedural video documentaries to help staff learn how to use specific equipment. She thinks the new program has a lot of merit but she is quite anxious about using video and computer technology. This scenario is based on events that took place during a workplace learning initiative that employed self-produced videos as educational tools in a hospital intensive care unit. (Bjorgvinsson and Hillgren, 2002).
Cycle 1: Equipment shot list
A list of single shot descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of power switch, MS of the entire apparatus, WS of equipment in its location of use, PAN from equipment to person operating it, etc.)
Cycle 2: Equipment use preparation
A sequence of scenes depicting the movement of equipment from storage to a location of use are planned out in pre-production and shot continuously and in sequence during production.
Cycle 3: Instructional Video
Instructional video of a piece of medical equipment in use, including operator and patient. Portrait can include interviews, visual evidence and contextualization, audio layers such as operator or patient commentary, equipment sounds and narration.
Steve, 17, is enrolled in an inner-city program set up to assist youth. Video production is used by the program as a means of empowering members and instructing them on issues like social justice, responsibility and project management. Steve likes video production because it makes him feel in control and he likes it when people are impressed with his work. The administrators would like a set of videos that can be used to orientate newcomers to the rules and policies of the program. Steve wants the task of producing this set of videos but he lacks the skills. This scenario is based on conversations with an instructor of video production for a similar program.
Cycle 1: Shot list of scenes
A list of single shot descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of a young person’s face, MS person sitting at a desk, WS of a class of youth all at desks, PAN from class room to the exit, etc.)
Cycle 2: Accessing the Facility
Sequence of scenes depicting the journey from home to the facility are planned out in pre-production and shot continuously and in sequence during production.
Cycle
3: Rule #1
Short video that informs newcomers to the facility about one of its rules (e.g. the rule that only one person talks at a time that is designed to encourage listening and facilitate communication). Video can include interviews, visual evidence and contextualization, audio layers such as music and narration.
In 2000 a study was conducted that identified a ranked list of evaluation criteria that could assess the potential quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of instructional multi-media courseware. (Gibbs, 2000) The study used the Delphi Process2 with a panel of instructional technology “experts” to rate a list of evaluation criteria that was compiled from a literature review. For the study an expert was someone who currently publishes, teaches, or is employed in the field of computer-based courseware design, development or evaluation. The study determined a list of 16 criteria, with an associated category (see Table 1), that create a useful starting point for a pedagogical design and evaluation.
The questions that came out of the “Identifying Important Criteria for Multimedia Instructional Courseware Evaluation” study by William Gibbs (2000) were used as both criteria to be adhered to while designing the interface and as a source of inquiry for the students who were involved in the pilot study using the Cycles of Iteration interface. Some of the questions are not applicable such as ones referring to testing and feedback because the Cycles of Iteration interface does not include these elements.
# |
Category |
Criteria |
| 1 | Information Content | Does the courseware provide accurate information? |
| 2 | Information Reliability | Are the answers provided to questions correct? |
| 3 | Instructional Adequacy | Are practice activities provided in the courseware to actively involve the learner? |
| 4 | Feedback and Interactivity | If a test is used, are test questions relevant to the courseware objectives? |
| 5 | Clear, concise, unbiased language | Are sentences written clearly? |
| 6 | Evidence of Effectiveness | Did learners learn from the courseware? |
| 7 | Instruction Planning | Is a definition of the target audience and prerequisite skills given in the courseware? |
| 8 | Feedback and Interactivity | Is feedback appropriate? |
| 9 | Instructional Adequacy | Are instructional objectives clearly? |
| 10 | Support Issues | Are the computer hardware and software requirements for the courseware specified? |
| 11 | Information Content | Are examples, practice exercises and feedback meaningful and relevant? |
| 12 | Interface Design | Is the courseware screen layout easy to understand? |
| 13 | Instructional Adequacy | Is the purpose of the courseware and what is needed to complete the lesson made explicit? |
| 14 | Information Content | Is the information current? |
| 15 | Interface Design | Do learners understand directions for using the courseware? |
| 16 | Instructional Adequacy | Does the courseware provide adequate support to help learners accomplish the lesson objectives? |
Table 1 Evaluation Criteria for Multimedia Instructional Courseware (Gibbs, 2000)
Students in the pilot study responded positively to questions about clarity of writing by making statements like the interface instruction was “easy to understand” or “simply laid out.” The students checked the accuracy of the information to the extent that they pointed out typing errors or other such mistakes, however verification of content accuracy was better made by review by experienced video instructors. The criteria that received mix reviews were based on clarity of instructional objectives. Students stated that the design of the interface was “too general” and that they would like more examples that were specific to their assignments. To address this is a matter of balance between creating a general interface that can be used in a broad range of situations with one that addresses specific practical modules. Comments about whether the interface provided adequate support to accomplish objectives were helpful in identifying areas that could be expanded on in the future. These comments included specifics about confusing skills (such as importing and exporting from and to video tape) as well as more general statements about formal design and narrative structure (see cycle observations in the next section).
Development of the Cycles of Iteration interface was assisted using the process of a situated design inquiry, or what might be called “design through use.” Situated inquiry can be described as a:
"new framework for understanding
innovation and change. This framework has several key ingredients: It
emphasizes contrastive analysis and seeks to explore differences in
use. It assumes that the object of study is neither the innovation alone
nor its effects, but rather, the realization of the innovation--the
innovation-in-use. Finally, it produces hypotheses supported by detailed
analyses of actual practices. These hypotheses make possible informed
plans for use and change of innovations." (Bruce & Rubin, 1993,
p. 215)
Users (in this case students) participate in the design development by their contributions of content suggestions and evaluations of the design’s usefulness. The methods employed include a pilot study of an implementation of the interface in which interviews and participant observations were done to asses the level at which the design meets the specific needs of the students. This study used situated evaluation as a way to examine the interaction between a newly developed mediated pedagogical design and the specific, contextual and experiential circumstances of a group of users.
The Cycles of Iteration interface was pilot tested using a group of 24 undergraduate students enrolled in a Communication course entitled “Introduction to Digital Video.” The course was offered at a second year level with no production experience required. An initial survey of the students indicated that only two of them had any video production experience. The intention of the pilot study was to gather feedback and observations of end users while the interface was still being developed in order to inform its design rather than to make an evaluation of a final product. Although, an evaluation of the design could be extracted from the information gathered.
Students enrolled in the class were asked to participate in a research project to help design the pedagogical resources that would be part of the course. All students agreed to participate and were given an informed consent form (see Appendix A) indicating what participating would involve and contact information for registering any complaints or questions in accordance to Simon Fraser University Research Ethics policy.
The
design of the Cycles of Iteration interface allows for more complex
issues to be presented with subsequent iterations. This results in more
time required to complete higher-level cycles. The following table gives
the time requirements needed to present each cycle and complete the
related module during the pilot study.
| Cycle |
Presentation of Material |
Completion of Module |
Dates |
| Cycle 1 | Pre – 10 min
Pro – 20min Post – 5min Review – 5min Total – 40min |
Production – 60min
Screening – 60min |
January 6, 2003 Total time – one day |
| Cycle 2 | Pre – 60min + discussion
(20min)
Pro – 15min |
Pre-Production
With some Production – 1Week |
January 13, 2003 |
| Pro – 40min
Post – 30min |
Production and Post-Production – 1Week | January 20, 2003 | |
Review – 20min
Total – 3hours |
Screening – 2hours | January 27, 2003
Total time – 2Weeks |
|
| Cycle 3 | Pre – 20min part 1 | Pre-Production – 1Week | January 27, 2003 |
| Pre – 2hours part
2
Pro – 40min |
Production – 1Week | February 3, 2003 | |
| Post – 2hours + 30min for questions | Post-Production – 1Week | February 10, 2003 | |
Review – 20min
Total – 5.8hours |
Screening with critique – 4hours | February 17, 2003
Total time – 3Weeks |
Table
2 Dates and Times for completion of each practical module
Observations of how students reacted to the presentation or slide show portion of the Cycles of Iteration interface were recorded in the form of field notes that were made at the end of each week. In addition to observations, informal questions were asked of the students about what they remembered most from last weeks presentation and about what additional content could have been included to assist the completion of each practical module.
The following is a summary of my observations and student comments that could be incorporated into the interface design.
Pre-production
Post-production
Review
Pre-production
Production
Post-production
Review
Pre-production
Production
Post-production
Review
In addition to the pilot study the Cycles of Iteration interface was sent to a number of “experts” who are or have been employed professionally in the field of instructing video production. The responses from this expert panel were intended not only to provide constructive criticism on the interface but also to elicit new ideas for content and design based on their experience in this area. Each expert was given the URL for the Cycles of Iteration interface along with a brief description of the project and an example of practical modules that could be used for each iteration. Feedback from these experts was gathered from interviews (in-person or by telephone) or from emailed comments.
The comments from the expert panel agreed that the content of the Cycles of Iteration interface was accurate and clearly presented. There were some suggestions that the attempt to create a general interface that could be used by a broad range of users was both a strength and a weakness in the design. It was suggested that the model (expanding spiral) was a good general design but as each iteration increased in complexity more specific information is required, which works against the idea of a general interface. Other suggestions related to this were that general information and specific information be separated so that the interface is based only on the general but spaces are made to “plug in” specific modules. The nature of video production necessarily requires very specific instruction based on equipment, software, and the uniqueness of the production itself. This necessity was balanced with a criteria set out in the problem statement for this design that was to make a general interface for advancing novice Videographer. Strategies to address this balance between generality and specificity would be one of the first areas to address in future re-designs of this interface.
A suggestion that came out of the expert panel was to create a separate page that contained links to other related web sites. This would provide users interested in related topics a starting point for further research, as well as give students the impression that the area of video production can be quite vast and open-ended. Another recommendation was to break down the script writing section to include sections on “the idea” and “the outline” as a way to build up to an actual script.
Weekly
statistics of hits to the web host site were accumulated over the time
of the pilot study. These statistics can show some of the general patterns
of use on the Cycles of Iteration web site. The site was not activated
until the week ending with January 24th. At this time the
pilot study group was into their cycle 2 project, the Road Trip. Prior
to this time the site was used as a presentation or on a single computer
for reference. The completion time for the first cycle (one day) does
not allow for much review. The consistent number of hits on the first
and second cycles right through to end of the pilot study (April 4th)
could indicate the review process happening as intended by the design.
Figure
3 Hits on the Cycle of Iteration web site for duration of Pilot
Study (Dates represent the end of that week)
The dramatic increase in hits that occur in the week ending March 7th is due to a mid-term exam that was given that week. This peak of activity does not reflect how the site was intended to be used but it does show the undeniable importance university students place on exams.
It
should be noted that the designed use of the Cycles of Iteration interface
intergrates modes of presentation and review. The data for site hits
represents only the review mode within the context of the undergraduate
university student. Also, many students preferred to print a hard copy
of the concept pages for each cycle and refer to that rather than going
back to the web site.
Figure 4 Hits, Unique Hosts, Unique URL's for duration of Pilot Study (dates represent the end of that week)
With
the exception of the mid-term exam peak there seems to be a contrapuntal
relationship between the total /cycle hits and the Unique URL’s. This
represents more activity on fewer pages. The number of unique hosts
accessing the /cycle site showed a slight increase during the pilot
study.
Figure
5 Hits for the top pages for each quadrant.
The pages that contributed most to this increase of activity are:
The
process of developing the Cycles of Iteration interface has been an
exploration into both the practical challenges of mediated pedagogical
design and the theoretical reasoning for attempting to advance media
literacy. One of the main ideas behind this interface is that
a critical understanding of media’s roll in society is enhanced by
a personal, practical knowledge of its production. The intention of
the Cycles of Iteration interface has never been to just supply an educational
resource for video production; rather it has been to create a system
that can enhance an instructor lead study into how media can construct
and influence our culture. This intention can only be realized
by the conscious practice on the part of the instructor to emphasize
a critical analysis of media and its influences on society. The
Cycles of Iteration interface can free up an instructors time and effort
to make that emphasis possible. Its modular and generalized structure
makes it possible for it to be incorporated as a component to a variety
or more “theoretical” curricula. Furthermore, the iterative nature
of the interface design allows for theories to be introduced and then
revisited at each subsequent iteration.
The idea of building a theoretical understanding upon practical knowledge can allow a form of media literacy that reduces the separation between a purely academic critique and the isolated tradition of training for the culture industry. In addition this combination of theory and practice provides an important access point for students because it can use forms of popular culture they are already familiar with and it allows an outlet for their personal expression. As Stanley Aronwitz points out,
“…critical work without an effort
to produce popular art forms remains a peculiarly intellectual take
on cultural life which is already distant from the experience of students.
What I am saying is this: There can be no cultural pedagogy without
a cultural practice that both explores the possibilities of the form
and brings out students’ talents.” (1989, p.201)
My
experience of teaching video production has brought into question a
division between the practice of production and the analysis of media
as critical area of study. The dependence on technology and the
domination of a professional production model entrench a division between
the practice of production and a critique of the media product. My difficulty
with this inherent division is echoed by what David Sholle and Stan
Denski refer to as “feelings of schizophrenia” (1994, p.7). A dichotomy
is formed when you teach to create what you are teaching to critique.
Sholle and Denski suggest, “building bridges” across this separation
by placing production within an “integrated curriculum” (1994, p.171).
This form of integration of production with theory is part of the intention
behind the design of the Cycles of Iteration interface.
The
task of bringing together the production practice with the critical
theory is daunting, but the potential rewards are great. The insights
gained by a personal, practical awareness of production in combination
with a critical theory that contextualizes media socially, politically
and economically far outweigh the inherent challenges. The goal is to
move towards an applied pedagogy that blends “learning to do” with
“learning to critically understand” (Kline, 2002).
The
idea of using the popular product of the culture industry as a pedagogical
device has long been a vision of educators (see Crandall, 1926). However,
professional modes of media production have demanded resources that
were out of reach most education environments. Only recently with the
advent of Digital Video (DV) technology has it become feasible to integrate
production into other forms of learning. In many cases the computers
students are using to type essays and check email are sufficient to
edit video as well. The accessibility of video production technology
is a major factor in the argument for incorporating production into
existing media analysis curricula.
The
process of developing the Cycles of Iteration interface was both challenging
and informative. It is a pursuit that has no final product only a small
contribution to what can be done or improved on in the future.
The most important thing I learnt from this development process is that
incorporating technologically based teaching resources into the learning
environment does not diminish the roll of the instructor. Mediating
the learning process with technology can be very helpful with many practical
aspects of production. Technical specifications, checklists, examples,
and the like are well suited to an interface such as the Cycles of Iteration.
However, the real synergy between theory and practice comes with a combination
of practical skills with critical analysis, discussion, and reflection.
This combination can assisted with mediated pedagogical resources but
can only be realized in conjunction with traditional forms of learning
that involve a dialog between teacher and learner.
The
Cycles of iteration interface was an extremely helpful resource for
teaching video production. It has provided a framework for the future
addition of much more information and examples. However, the real challenge
for future development is how to integrate practical production skills
into a curriculum of critical media analysis. The Cycles of Iteration
interface represents only the beginning of this challenge.
Informed Consent By Subjects to Participate In a Research Project
The University and those conducting this project subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of subjects. This research is being conducted under permission of the Simon Fraser Research Ethics Board. The chief concern of the Board is for the health, safety and psychological well being of research participants.
Should you wish to obtain information about your rights as a participant in research, or about the responsibilities of researchers, or if you have any questions, concerns or complaints about the manner in which you were treated in this study, please contact the Director, Office of Research Ethics by email at hweinber@sfu.ca or phone at 604-268-6593
Your signature on this form will signify that you have received a document which describes the procedures, possible risks, and benefits of this research project, that you have received an adequate opportunity to consider the information in the documents describing the project or experiment, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the project or experiment
Any information that is obtained during this study will be kept confidential to the full extent permitted by the law. Knowledge of your identity is not required. You will not be required to write your name on any other identifying information on research materials
Name of Experiment: Pedagogical Design: Cycles of Iteration case study
Investigator Name: David C. Murphy
Investigator Department: Communication
Having been asked to participate in a research project or experiment, I certify that I have read the procedures specified in this document, describing the project or experiment. I understand the procedures to be used in this experiment and the personal risks, and benefits to me in taking part in the project or experiment, as stated below:
Risks and Benefits: There is no perceivable increase in risk by participating in this study. Benefits to participating include experience of a research method in practice.
I understand that I may withdraw my participation at any time. I also understand that I may register any complaint with the Director of the Office of Research Ethics or the researcher named above or with the Chair, Director or Dean of the Department, School or Faculty as shown below.
Dean of Applied Science: Dr. Brian Lewis
Director of Research Ethics: Dr. H. Weinberg
8888 University Way, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
I may obtain copies of the results of this study, upon its completion by contacting:
David C. Murphy (davidcot@sfu.ca)
I have been informed that the research will be confidential to the full extent permitted by the law.
I understand that my supervisor or employer may require me to obtain his or her permission prior to my participation in a study of this kind.
Participants will be asked to contribute to a situated inquiry project testing a pedagogical model. They may be asked questions in interviews and questionnaires and will be observed during their participation.
Participant’s Full Name:
Participant’s contact information:
Date:
___________________________________ ____________________________
Participant’s Signature Witness Signature
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
The University and those conducting this project subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of subjects. This form and the information it contains are given to you for your own protection and full understanding of the procedures. Your signature on this form will signify that you understand the procedures, possible risks, and benefits of this research project, that you have received an adequate opportunity to consider this information, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the project.
Any information that is obtained during this study will be kept confidential to the full extent permitted by law. Knowledge of your identity is not required. You will not be required to write your name or any other identifying information on the research materials. Materials will be held in a secure location and will be destroyed after the completion of the study. However, it is possible that, as a result of legal action, the researcher may be required to divulge information obtained in the course of this research to a court or other legal body.
The procedure for the Pedagogical Media Design Assessment research project will entail access to a prototype of the Pedagogical Media Design Interface followed by an in-person interview that will assess the efficacy of the interface.
Having been asked by David Murphy of the School of Communication of Simon Fraser University to participate in a research project experiment, I have read the procedures specified in this document.
I understand that I may withdraw my participation in this experiment at any time.
I also understand that I may register any complaint I might have about the experiment with the researcher named above or with Dr. Brian Lewis, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science of Simon Fraser University.
I may obtain copies of the results of this study, upon its completion, by contacting: David Murphy (604-291-3623 or davidcot@sfu.ca)
I have been informed that the research material will be held confidential by the Principal Investigator.
I understand that my supervisor or employer may require me to obtain his or her permission prior to my participation in a study such as this.
I agree to participate by responding to interview questions asked by the Principal Investigator.
During a time period (within the dates of May 22, 2002 and August 30, 2003) and at the location to be agreed upon with the Principal Investigator. Interviews can be done over the telephone. The interviews will not be audio recorded.
NAME (please type or print legibly): _____________________________________
ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE: _______________________ WITNESS: ______________________
DATE:
Starting instructions for the Cycles of Iteration
The site structure starts with the Cycle
home symbol
Each cycle begins with the Pre-Production quadrant
located at the top right. Clicking on a quadrant takes
you into that module:
Each module is divided into two modes:
Use the arrow symbols to move up or down through
the concepts, or forward or back through the slides
The Cycle symbol will always take you back to the
previous level.
Shading indicates your current level
(this example is 1a)The Index pages show a complete cycle on one page.
Anderson, G. H. (1999). Video Editing and Post-Production: A Professional Guide. Boston: Focal Press.
Aronowitz, S. (1989). Working-Class Identity and Celluloid Fantasies in the Electronic Age. In H. A. Giroux & R. Simon (Eds.), Popular Culture, Schooling and Everyday Life (pp. 197-218). Granby, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey.
Barbash, I., & Taylor, L. (1997). Cross-Cultural Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making Documentary and Ethnographic Films and Videos. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bjorgvinsson, E. B., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2002). Readymade Design at an Intensive Care Unit. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Malmo, Sweden.
Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The Idea of Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Carrol, J. M. e. (1995). Scenario-Based Design. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, L. (1991). The Use of Scenarios By User Interface Designers. Paper presented at the HCI'91.
CML. (2003). Media Literacy: A Definition...and More. Retrieved March 5, 2003, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/rr2def.php
Crandall, E. L. (1926). Possibilities of the Cinema in Education. The Annals, 128, 109-115.
Denski, S. W. (1991). Critical Pedagogy and Media Poduction: The Theory and Practice of the Video Documentary. Journal of Film and Video, 43(3).
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The foundations of Embodied Interaction. Massachusettes: MIT Press.
Eldridge, M. (1998). Transforming experience : John Dewey's cultural instrumentalism. London: Vanderbilt University Pres.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1979). Truth and Method (W. Glen-Doepel, Trans. 2nd edition ed.). London: Sheed and Ward.
Geuens, J.-P. (2000). Film Production Theory. New York: State University of New York Press.
Gibbs, W. J. (2000). Identifying Important Criteria for Multimedia Instructional Courseware Evaluation. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(1), 84-106.
Gropius, W. (1943). Scope of Total Architecture (Vol. 3). New York: Harper and Row.
Hampe, B. (1997). Making Documentary Films and Reality Videos. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Inc.
Kline, S. (2002, November). E-mail correspondence
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Long, B., & Schenk, S. (2000). The Digital Filmmaking Handbook. Rockland, Mass.: Charles River Media Inc.
Lusted, D. (1986). Why Pedagogy? Screen, 12, 2-15.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographical Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nielsen, J. (1997). The Need For Speed. Retrieved April, 2003, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703a.html
Nishida, K. (1990, Trans.; 1921, Original). An Inquiry Into The Good (M. Abe & C. Ives, Trans.). Chelsea, Michigan: Yale University Press.
Norman, D. A. (2002). Gratuitous Graphics and Human-Centered Website Design. Retrieved April, 2003, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd_website_design.html
Rabiger, M. (1998). Directing the Documentary. Boston: Focal Press.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of
the Long View. New York: Doubleday.
Sholle, D., & Denski, S. W. (1994). Media Education and the (Re)Production of Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York: Schocken Books.
Zettl, H. (1995). Video Basics.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Anderson, G. H. (1999). Video Editing and Post-Production: A Professional Guide. Boston: Focal Press.
Ascher, S., & Pincus, E. (1999). The Filmmaker's Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for the Digital Age. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.
Barbash, I., & Taylor, L. (1997). Cross-Cultural Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making Documentary and Ethnographic Films and Videos. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Benedetti, R. (2002). From Concept to Screen: An Overview of Film and Television Production. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Collier, M. D. (2001). Digital Video Filmmaker's Handbook. Hollywood: Lone Eagle Publishing Co.
Compesi, R. J. (2003). Video Field Production and Editing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fairweather, R. (1998). Basic Studio Directing. Oxford: Focal Press.
Hampe, B. (1997). Making Documentary Films and Reality Videos. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Inc.
Harding, T. (1997). The Video Activist Handbook. London: Pluto Press.
Harris, C. R., & Lester, P. M. (2002). Visual Journalism: A Guide for New Media Professionals. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hitchcock, P. (1992). Videography. Toronto: Peter Hichcock Productions.
Jarvis, P. (1998). The Essential TV Director's Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.
LaLoggia, N. S., & Wurmfeld, E. H. (1999). IFP/West Independent Filmmaker's Manual. Boston: Focal Press.
Long, B., & Schenk, S. (2000). The Digital Filmmaking Handbook. Rockland, Mass.: Charles River Media Inc.
Lyver, D., & Swainson, G. (1995). Basics of Video Lighting. Oxford: Focal Press.
Lyver, D. (1999). Basics of Video Sound. Oxford: Focal Press.
Lyver, D., & Swainson, G. (1999). Basics of Video Production. Oxford: Focal Press.
Matza, A. (1995). The Video Production Organizer. Boston: Focal Press.
Orlebar, J. (2002). Digital Television Production: A Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rabiger, M. (1997). Directing: Film Techniques and Aesthetics (2nd ed.). Boston: Focal Press.
Rabiger, M. (1998). Directing the Documentary. Boston: Focal Press.
Rowlands, A. (1994). The Continuity Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.
Shook, F. (2000). Television Field Production and Reporting. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Thompson, R. (1998). Grammar of the Shot. Oxford: Focal Press.
Ward, P. (2000). Digital Video Camerawork. Oxford: Focal Press.
York, M., & Muratore, S. (2001). The Computer Videomaker Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Making Video. Boston: Focal Press.
Zettl, H. (1995). Video Basics.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
1 The term videographer refers to a person who produces a finished video product, usually taking on a majority of the tasks personally (i.e. camera operator, interviewer, producer, editor, etc.)
2 The Delphi Process is an iterative consensus building process that allows group-based decisions to be made on a common interest. The process includes the use of an anonymous feedback loop to cycle information back to the group until a consensus is reached. It is often used for forecasting futures and is an appropriate method for technologically mediated group decisions. Developed in the 1950s by Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey. More information see (Linstone, 1975).
All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download
Copyright © 2011